The Unified Field Theory of Film Criticism and Other Myths

Anyone who has ever noted how often critics disagree with each other and how often today's critical turkey turns into tomorrow's critical masterpiece -- and vice versa -- cannot help but think that the average movie-goer would be a lot better off if he or she only uses a critic's work as a general guideline. If critic so-and-so likes a movie, he or she might like it too but then he or she might not. There is no Unified Field Theory of Film Criticism and yet people continually act as if there is one -- or more importantly, as if there should be one.

Indeed, sometimes I think the main distinction people make between the average film critic and the friend they have who sees a lot of movies is that most people are willing to let it slide if their friend inadvertently recommends a movie that they did not care for but if a critic recommends the same type of movie, it is just another reason why you cannot trust those damned critics.

To be fair, we live in a world where money is getting increasingly tight and where most movie-goers are even more determined than ever to get their money's worth. Most movies nowadays are not just competing for Joe's beer money (to steal a phrase from the late Robert A. Heinlein); they also seem to be competing for his bill money to boot.

It does not help that few critics either build or keep a substantial readership by saying "this movie was okay" or "this movie was nice" or "this movie was not what I hoped for." Instead, there is a temptation to hype everything as the "best movie since The Great Train Robbery" or "the funniest movie I ever saw" or "the worst experience I ever had in my life". And of course, most movies cannot be accurately described that way.

Anyway, most of the time people complain about critics being too opinionated, what they really mean is that the critics do not express opinions that they can agree with.